Why We Lost The War - Prof. Nwala

Copied

Biafra: Why we lost the war 

- Prof. Nwala

...says separate nations can only be brought together as a state through the principle of self-determination

April 14, 2019

By Chukwuemeka Chimerue, Chief Editor

ENUGU - PRESIDENT of a prominent pan-Igbo group, Alaigbo Development Foundation (ADF), Prof. Uzodinma Nwala has stated that he felt disappointed with the current state of affairs in the Nigerian state, especially as it concerns the place of the Igbos in the present configuration, lamenting that unless the people came together to take their destiny in their hands, the future looked very bleak.

While appraising the position of the Igbo in the Nigeria entity and the reasons the Biafra nation fell in 1967, the former university lecturer cum activist revealed that contrary to his earlier perception, “Biafra lost the war, not because God wanted us to remain in Nigeria, but because we didn’t understand the dynamics of world politics.”

He further stressed that prior to the war, his intention was to join other well-meaning nationalists in building a Nigerian nation that would emerge as the pride of the black race and Africans in general but soon realized that there exist many irreconcilable differences between the myriads of nations/tribes that constituted the Nigerian state, adding that only through the principle of self-determination can separate nations come together to form a political union.

According to Prof. Nwala, “I’m disappointed because I’m truly and generally aware that things are not moving in the right direction, particularly as they concern our people Ndigbo. I was one of those who were brought up in an environment where we believed that Nigeria was a genuine nation state that was being built up to be the pride of the black man and the pride of Africans. In the hay days of pan-Africanism, Nigeria was being built as a nation that will bring together all the blacks. While we were studying in the University of Nigeria, Nsukka, the spirit and air of Nigerian nationalism was oozing all over the whole place. I was the Chairman of Awolowo Hall in Nsukka. You also had Bello Hall, Isa Kaita Hall. All those ones were named after genuine actors in the process of building a great African nation and we were great Zikists, great nationalists until something happened; there was a coup of 1966. But before that coup, we witnessed the census crisis, we witnessed the election crisis, with NCNC boycotting the elections and later rejoining. We witnessed the Midwest crisis and all the killings and so on, we witnessed all the wars of attrition, killing of the Igbo. Some of us went to Enugu and saw headless bodies and bodies of pregnant women and we started asking ourselves whether we were really building a nation of the dream of Zik and others. While we were reading Zik, we were also reading Kwame Nkrumah, Nasa, Jomo Kenyata, and others. We were great pan-Africanists who believed that we should build a great nation that will supplant the colonialist traps.

“But from that civil war, we saw all the horrors and it dawned on us that something was wrong; there were differences, not only in tongue and culture but in totality of what you call nations. We remembered what Aminu Kano was fighting in the North. Aminu Kano was not a mad man, but he woke up to fight for the interests of what he called Talakawas, meaning the Hausas, who were already being usurped by the Fulani hegemony. We also knew about Tarka trying to fight for the liberation of the Tiv nation. Boro was with us at Nsukka. But during the crisis, he went back to his place and realised that what was more fundamental was not Eastern Nigeria or Nigeria, but the interest of the Ogoni people and the Ijaw nation. So, it was there that we started realising that something was wrong. We took part in the war that was fought for the Igbo to come back home and rebuild ourselves since they didn’t want us to be here. But the war was unleashed on the Igbo with conspiracy by the international community. I was one of those that said okay, we’ve lost the war and I read religious meaning into it, but I found out that it was a wrong religious meaning. I said to myself that we lost the war maybe because God wanted us to remain in Nigeria and I took part in trying to see whether we can build a new nation.

“We thought that the defeat of Biafra was God telling us no, you don’t need Biafra; you need Nigeria. But that was a wrong meaning to what happened. We lost the war, not because God wanted us to go back to Nigeria. We lost the war for obvious reasons, which I found when I went to New York in 1973 for my post-graduate work. I spent days and time at the United Nations and I was searching for an answer to the question, why Biafra fell. At the end of those days of working in the United Nations and other places, I found an answer. It was not because God hated us or because he wanted us to go back to Nigeria. It was because politically, we did not understand the dynamics of world politics at the time. Ojukwu didn’t understand. A bit of the lesson on the dynamics of world politics was being imparted to him by Zik, but Ojukwu didn’t understand. He was a young man, very committed to Biafra, an Igbo patriot, but he had limited knowledge. When you move out of Biafra and then into other nations that had the same problem at the same time, first of all during the war, the Soviet Union sought to help us, I don’t know if you heard the story.

They offered to help Biafra because most of the socialist leaders in Nigeria, most of the Marxist leaders in Nigeria were Igbo, the likes of O. C. Ememe, Ikenna, were great socialists. They were close to the Soviet Union and the Soviet Union wanted to come and help us. But Ojukwu said no. Nwajekwu said no because they felt doing that would mean we would now become communists and we would socialize property. That’s why they rejected the Soviet offer for help. What did the Soviet Union do? They can’t force themselves on Biafra. They didn’t want to be isolated from that momentous developing world history of events in Nigeria at the time. Therefore, they had to fall back to the United Nations principle of respect for the territorial integrity of nations. That was why they now went and supported Nigeria since we rejected their help. But compare us with other nations, people that were fighting the same battle of liberation at the time. Take Mozambique, take Namibia, take South Africa and take Cuba. All those countries, because they knew they were fighting against forces within what we call the world capitalist system, they had to seek help from the socialist world and they succeeded. The most spectacular was Cuba. Fidel Castro was not a socialist when he attempted to dethrone Batista. In 1956 he failed; 1959 he succeeded. When they took over Cuba, he was not a socialist. It’s when the American forces now came to flush them out and they knew they were in a battle to save the soul of their nation, therefore, they must seek help from where they can sustain their battle. They had to go to the Soviet Union to get help and the Soviet Union guaranteed the success of Cuba. The lesson Ojukwu failed to understand is that at that time in the world, the world was split into two. I’m sure you heard of what was cold war, East and West. You are either here or you are there. You can’t be here and there. But Ojukwu wanted to be here and there. If you remember the popular slogan at the time, they would say Biafra for the free world is a task that must be done. Who are the free world? It’s the capitalist countries, Britain, France and so on and these are the countries that didn’t want Nigeria to be divided because Nigeria was their marketplace and we are seeking help from them to destroy their market place. That is the height of contradiction. That is the levity of Ojukwu at the time.

“The key problem of the Igbo is the same old problem. NdiIgbo is a nation, a people with one language, one culture, like France in Europe, like Germany in Europe, like Spain in Europe, like Portugal in Europe, like the English in Europe. Don’t mind the hot porgy called Britain. Britain is a collection of nations, English, Welsh, Scotland, and Northern Ireland and you know they have been struggling to be on their own. In the world arena of soccer, each of them has its own team, not the English team. That shows you they are nations of their own. They are only trying gradually to see how they can free themselves and become autonomous nations. Some time ago, Europe was being ruled by empires that connected many of these nations together, but those empires have crumbled and they have come to be nations of their own. If you read Obafemi Awolowo, you will get the point that Nigeria is an artificial creation. It’s the bringing together of separate nations against their will. The old concept of tribe is ancient European ideological concept. There is nothing like tribe. What you have are nations – the Igbo nation, Yoruba nation, Benin nation, Tiv nation, Ijaw, Efik, Fulani, Hausa. All these are nations of their own that were brought together against their will. That is the problem you and I have today until we realize that separate nations can only be brought together in a political nation-state through the principle of self-determination.

“It’s about renegotiation of how separate nations can live together. Restructuring is a very vague, misleading and treacherous concept. When you talk of restructuring, you are begging a superpower, the Federal Government to please reorganize the whole thing. Give us more power. That’s what you mean by restructuring. But that’s not the issue now. The issue now is sitting down and renegotiating how we go forward. We tried to do it in the 2014 National Conference. That Conference went very far, but not as far as it should. When the Fulani saw that that conference was going to lead to the liberation of the separate nations, they stepped forward and said no war. They put their feet down and canceled that conference.

“When you talk of Biafra, they mean a nation-state comprising Ndigbo, the Efik, the Ijaw. That’s what they call Biafra. But that Biafra can only come when the forces controlling Efik come forward and say we want to be part of it, the forces controlling Ijaw say we want to be part of it. When everybody say they want to be part of it, we sit down and work out the modalities for running that multi-nation state. That’s what Biafra is. We can’t assume that all of them are part of it. We will only be working towards a point where all of them will come and say we are part of this nation. Unless they say so, you can’t rope them into a nation-state they have not decided to be part of.

“The way to favour everybody is the way to make Ndigbo fully in control of their affairs. Let me give you some little practical examples, which some of you ignore. Let’s take elections, which is one of the instruments they use in enslaving you and me. I don’t know if you know one election in America involving El-Gore and George Bush. What held it back was the Florida election if you remember. Where was the final decision? The Court of Florida and not of America. So, a situation where the Hausa-Fulani controlled judiciary decides who becomes your governor is anomalous. So, when you are talking of renegotiation, that’s part of the things you have to renegotiate and say we are an autonomous region, we want to control our judiciary. Let us even take education; in America, which is a super federation, there is nothing like one institution of the American state controlling all the universities in America. There is nothing like one institution in America controlling admission into universities in America. If you want to go to an American university, if you are a graduate, you take what is called GRE. If you are an undergraduate, you take what is called TOEFL. If you pass TOEFL, you take your result to any university you are seeking for admission and they admit you. You are a graduate who wants to go to America to do graduate programme, once you pass the examination, you take your result to Harvard, New York, anywhere and they give you admission. That examination does not decide where you go. They don’t give any quota limits.”

When asked of his opinion concerning the visible divide of some prominent Igbo leaders clamouring for restructuring while some are yearning for the Igbo to emerge as Nigeria’s present, the Igbo leader said, “many of you talk about restructuring without understanding what it is. I’m giving you the nitty-gritty of it. It is not something the Federal Government can give you. It’s something that the nations of Nigeria will come together to sit down and say let us rebuild this through a political conference. That political conference will decide a political arrangement for the nation and all legislative body will affirm it. You don’t have the right to alter it. There was a time this battle was very strong in those days when they were talking about national conference. That is the issue today.

“Who are the Igbo leaders talking about president? An Igbo President under the present condition will keep us where we are. Igbo President that will be produced by the present INEC without reorganizing it as a new institution will be meaningless. Can Orji Kalu become President without the Hausa-Fulanis endorsing him? As things are now, who pulls the political strings in the North? It’s the Fulanis. Do you know that in the North, most of the governors are Fulani governors? Most of the Senators are Fulani Senators. Most of the House of Reps members are mostly Fulani. The Fulani through a historical process is in charge of the North. INEC, by its very nature, is not capable of giving you and I the kind of democratic election, the kind of free and fair election that you and I need in a federal union. It’s controlled by outside forces.

“You and I have a duty to our people. If we really mean business, we have to tell ourselves our problems. We mean well for our people. Most of the chaps elected into positions, some of them are well-meaning, but they don’t understand the dynamics of the power struggle in Nigeria and this is where you and I can come in to educate them, to direct them. That’s the duty you and I owe them. It is not a question of Orji Uzor Kalu wanting to be Deputy Senate President. Can he be and who will anoint him under the present circumstances? If he becomes, he will owe his allegiance to them to be able to sustain his position. That is the reality of it. We want a situation whereby an Orji Uzo Kalu, a very vibrant young man will get in there as an Igbo man and not waiting to be anointed, knowing full well that if he becomes a hero, he can only be a meaningful hero of an Igbo son, not a Fulani son or surrogate. At the end of the day, he knows what bothers the people, all these killings, all these overtaking of our territories, he will stand firm as an Igbo and say no, we can’t have it. He should defend our fatherland.

“Without proper negotiation on our terms and conditions of co-existence, the only future the Igbo have is as slaves. They have no future of freedom. If things remain as they are, you cannot produce your governor, you cannot produce your legislator and be sure it’s your legislator. I’ve told you the example of America. There shouldn’t be any super electoral body for the whole country. They will knock him out through INEC and through the judiciary which they now control. The highpoint of it was the removal of Onnoghen, because they were afraid Onnoghen will upset the applecart.”

OPOBO KINGDOM!!!

OPOBO KINGDOM!!!

OPOBO KINGDOM!!! 

The ancient City State of Opobo stands as a founder’s delight. Chief Jack Annie Pepple and other pioneer Chiefs eluded their home in Grand Bonny the heartland of the Ibani people, to establish a new kingdom called “Opobo” (English for Opubo-ama, or the Kingdom of Opobo). It was derived from the name of legendary King Opubo (1738 – 1830) a celebrated Ibani monarch. Thanks to the strategic vision of Chief Jack Annie Pepple, the establishment of Opobo became an economic and political master stroke.

It went far beyond its immediate cause, which was the 1869 war in Grand Bonny between Fubara Manilla group of Houses led by Chief Oko Jumbo and the Opubo Annie Pepple group led by Chief Jack Annie Pepple whose Ibani name of JuwoJuwo was rendered as Jaja by the British. The legend of Jaja was in the making, on the horn of danger and destruction that would have terrified lesser men. Not Jaja. For he turned the crisis of a civil war and defeat in Bonny into a great advantage for him and pioneer chiefs of Opobo, with the establishment of a new kingdom. Jaja and his group secured a geographical location that reinforced their tactical and diplomatic vision as founding fathers. The land stood just about a day’s paddle away from their ancestral Ibani root. With it they were set to turn their new kingdom into a unique 19th century bridge for commerce. They crowned their leader Chief Jack Annie Pepple (Juwo Juwo) as King Jaja, the first Amanyanabo of Opobo Kingdom. They chose December 25, 1870 to establish Opobo. From its location, Opobo easily reached out to set up trading posts with land-based farmer communities. There spread out under thick foliages of fresh water forests to the left of the kingdom, along the one – way direction of a resolute Imo River. The run of the river covered hinterland sections of the Ogoni, Ndoki, Ibibio, Annang, Etche, Ngwa and Igbo people. And to its right, the new kingdom followed the tidal sweep of the Atlantic Ocean. Opobo traders went through winding rivers and creeks to build business interests linking different communities with deft socio-cultural ties that were largely viable. These took them into maritime coastal communities of Andoni, Ibibio, and Ibuno among others on the south eastern tip of the old Oil Rivers protectorate. This was before colonial Britain seized the Niger Delta. The region was later shaped into part of a new political entity called Nigeria, which Britain created. King Jaja and the founding Chiefs demonstrated tenacity of purpose, statesmanship and commercial drive to bring Opobo to international prominence. The Kingdom quickly became one of the six leading City States of the Oil Rivers protectorate. Their strategic moves successfully engineered their local economy into prime relevance in the Palm Produce trade of 19th Century. Europe designed the trade to favour infant industries belonging to its urban merchant class, at the expense of rural West African communities.

Against this economic confrontation, King Jaja earned distinction as a leading entrepreneur and nationalist in the struggle against Europe’s business driven political agenda. Together with the pioneer Chiefs of Opobo Kingdom, King Jaja built a flourishing City – State that helped to shape trade, education and diplomatic relations between European countries and paramount Niger Delta Kingdoms. These endeavours helped to define and strengthen the economy of the Niger Delta. Unfortunately the same endeavours sign-posted King Jaja as a symbol of potential indigenous control of the unfolding trade with Europe, an unyielding nationalist and first apostle of “resource control” in the Niger Delta. His position threatened the agenda of imperial Britain. He was subsequently abducted by Britain through ungentlemanly guile, tried under false charges and dispatched into exile like kings of other prominent communities, to clear the coast for the British. With Jaja and his fellow symbols of indigenous control of the Niger Delta out of the way, the British made rapid progress in imposing their empire on the region. They became the colonial master! To seek a new direction for the home of King Jaja, this narrative was revisited with holistic passion by His Majesty King Dandeson Douglas Jaja (Jeki V or King Jaja the Fifth) in his coronation address as Amanyanabo of Opobo Kingdom on January 3, 2004.

The communities of the kingdom sprawl out on a geographical canvass whose coordinates are latitude O4o34’N and longitude O7o12’E. The kingdom’s location on the interphase between Imo Rivers estuary and the Atlantic Ocean, has surrounded Opobo with more brackish than saline water. This derives from the volume of run off freshwater into Imo Rivers estuary from the hinterland and the large rainfall of over 3000mm per annum. The result is a more delicate ecosystem. It is mixed with the flora and fauna of both fresh water tolerant species such as the Nypa palm vegetation as well as a saline sensitive stock of shell fishes. There are also the flourish of rare mangrove forests of white and red varieties. Modern Opobo Kingdom is renewing the vision of relevance of its economy. King Dandeson Douglas Jaja JP, Jeki V Amanyanabo of Opobo, began succession rites in 1980, when his illustrious father King Douglas Jaja (Jaja IV), joined his ancestors. The coronation ceremony on January 3, 2004 has ushered in a systematic process of structures to enhance consultations and participation by the citizenry. They are to harness and redirect the human, cultural and social resources of the kingdom to fit into a productive local economy in a dynamic world. Appropriate committees have been set up by 2005 on the first anniversary of the coronation. A plan of action with innovations to inspire the kingdom, is being concretized under the leadership of the Council of Alapu (Chiefs) and the Amanyanabo of Opobo Kingdom. Opobo Town is the headquarters of Opobo/Nkoro Local Government Area created in 1996.

The Kingdom is made up of satellite towns namely:

(1)Kalaibiama,

(2)Queens Town,

(3) Minima,

(4) Illoma.

(5) Epellema,.

(6)Ekereborikiri.

(7)Down-Below.

(8)Abazibie.

(9)Opukalama.

(10) Kalasunju.

(11) Amadiari.

(12)Ozu efere.

(13) Ozu Okobori.

(14) Ozu Egbelu.

Etc.

There are also settlements and villages or fishing ports belonging to various Wari (War Canoe Houses) and Polo (Group of Houses or Section) of Opobo Kingdom. STRUCTURE AND SYMBOLS Opobo Kingdom has 67 Wari (War Canoe Houses or Chieftaincy Compounds) each of which is headed by an Alabo (Chief).

The 67 Wari belong to the 14 Polo whose pioneer chiefs established Opobo Kingdom as the founding fathers. It was their success and those of their descendants as competitive entrepreneurs in the Palm Produce economy that led to the flourish of the number of Wari in each Polo. At the head of the kingdom is the Amanyanabo who is the Paramount Ruler and the King. The 14 Polo inaugurated by the founding Chiefs and their 67 Wari are as follows in order of size:

(1)King Jaja Polo (14 War Canoe Houses or Wari).

(2)Datoo Polo (8).

(3)Dappaye Amakiri Polo (7).

(4)Diepiri Polo (6).

(5) Kalaomuso Polo (5).

(6)Ukonu Polo (5).

(7) Kieprima Polo (4).

(8) Iruanya Polo (4).

(9)Epelle Polo ( 3).

(10) Jack Tolofari Polo ( 3).

(11) Fubarakuro Polo (2).

(12) Owujie Polo (2).

(13) Biriye Polo(2).

(14)Adibie Polo (2).

MEMBERS OF COUNCIL OF ALAPU: There are So many Members of the Council of Alapu in Opobo Kingdom. The number changes as War Canoe Houses in each Polo come forward to fill their vacant chieftaincy stools.

The Council sits regularly with the Amanyanabo as chairman, to deliberate on issues affecting the kingdom. The council is backed by two types of committees, created by the Amanyanabo since the inauguration of January 3, 2004. The first includes a number of strategic committees to deal with innovative ideas or issues that have tactical or strategic implications. The Awards Programme Committee (with Alabo Prof DMJ Fubara as its chairman) and The Blueprint Committee (under Prof Winston BellGam) are good examples. The second group of committees are administrative, to facilitate decision making or detailed implementation. Good examples include The Cultural Matters committee under Alabo I.C. Ogolo Fubara, the Tourism And Culture committee to be reconstituted and The Publicity Committee led by Alabo G.O.N. Bupo. Both sets of committees report to the full council, thus contributing to the effective management of the kingdom by the Amanyanabo and the Council of Alapu.

TRADITIONAL FLAGS Each War Canoe house has its own “badge”, a traditional flag on which is written in bold relief the name and symbol of the original founder of each Chieftaincy or War Canoe House. The flags are as many as the number of Houses that have come to comprise the Kingdom. These stood at 67 by the end of the 1940s when the last chieftaincy Houses were created. These traditional flags are usually hoisted with due ceremonies on the 24th December (Christmas Eve) every year, to commemorate the founding of Opobo Kingdom and to herald a month-long season of festivals.

The flags are rolled up on the last day of January of the New Year to close the festive season. Apart from traditional flags, there are other historical artifacts with which every war canoe house is identified. These include wooden gongs (“Ekere”), Wooden Xylophone-(“Ngelenge”), Boat Shed (“Aruwari”), family shrine (“Duobie”), and community shrines (“Luko”). WAR CANOES The Omu Aru (War Canoe) is the gun boat.

It was perhaps the defining symbol, representing political authority and power of the War Canoe House. It was also a statement of the collective capacity for self defense in men and material by the kingdom. Even more, it was the instrument for maintaining territorial integrity and business interests: either securing access or protecting markets of the kingdom, as in settlements/trading posts belonging to the Wari or Polo. Usually equipped with four canons, the War Canoe displayed massive firepower and long range capability: with one canon each to the fore, rear and to both sides at the middle of a long dug-out canoe, it had capacity for an average of 50 persons. Drummers in each party sat on a pre-fabricated loose wooden platform at the centre, in the bowel of the boat. This gave them some security. Theirs was the arduous task to whip the blood of the warriors into battle frenzy. Their wooden gongs or Ekere arranged in a definite tonal order, provided the hard-ware to pump a steady dose of music-like adrenalin into the blood stream of the warriors. The rest of the men had a dual role. They sat two in a row on the wooden crossings (nduru) in the boat. Their paddles flowed in unison, to power the War Canoe as fast as necessary to destination. They also served as warriors, armed with weapons of war to engage the enemy on contact or as their commander directed. GIG (REGATTA BOAT) It is a long canoe fully decorated with flags and buntings as well as drummers, to serve on relevant ceremonial occasions. One of such occasions is when the Alabo (Chief) of each Wari is required to display during his chieftaincy installation or join other Wari in a collective display during appropriate festive occasions.

The drummers embedded in the “gigi” work their instruments of xylophone (Ngelenge), bass drum (Akusa) and assorted wooden gongs (Ekere) to provide a rhythm which 32 or more paddlers follow. The annual Nwotam regatta display on December 31, has given the event an added dimension. Colorful troupes (called Uke) in various categories (senior, intermediate and minor) are produced by the 5 main groups currently in the centre of Nwotam activities of the kingdom. Unlike the Gigi display by Wari or Polo on chieftaincy related occasions, the Nwotam regatta is an annual event.

It is not tied to any House or Polo. In fact their membership is drawn from across different Polo and different professional specializations. Sometimes it is drawn from communities even outside Opobo Kingdom. The Nwotam groups are each autonomous but are coordinated under a central body, with Uke Mkpa as the apex organization. Uke Mkpa has the custody of the Nwotam masquerade regalia and regulates the dance.

The Amanyanabo is usually the Grand Patron of Uke Mkpa. In random order, the Nwotam groups or Uke as each one is called, are as follows:

i) Ejesilem Movement of Nigeria

ii) Ugele Mkpa Society

iii) Ofo-Na-Ogu Society

iv) Amatemeso Movement

v) Iyi-Eke Society

The gig of each Uke parades the Opobo river to entertain thousands of spectators that gather at the waterfronts every December 31. It is a colourful outburst of decorations, drummers and dancers that ignite the kingdom with pulsating rhythm. They continue to dance, from the landing of the regatta boats in the evening of December 31, until the Nwotam cultural explosion on January 1st. This has become a regular slot on the Opobo cultural calendar. Such displays have enhanced the backbone of the regatta culture in Opobo and added to the kingdom’s enthusiasm to utilize its unqualified advantage in this water sp

Letter To Theresa May Concerning Rwandan Genocide

RWANDAN GENOCIDE:

AN OPEN LETTER

TO THERESA MAY

10 April 2019.

Dear Theresa May,

I am delighted to write this onerous letter to you. This is my very first time of writing officially to you since you took over the political baton from your predecessor, David Cameron, who resigned shortly after it was announced that his country had voted to leave the European Union. Saying congratulations to you will be somewhat hypocritical considering the fact that the government which you are solely navigating has so far not performed credibly that will warrant any form of applause.

My primary aim of writing this letter to you is to remind you and the people of Britain that what goes around must surely comes around. And that no matter how long it tarries, one day the chicken will return to roost. As no man, no matter how swift, can run faster than his shadow.

Madam, I was outrightly shocked to my born marrow after I happened upon a short post you made on the 7th of April, 2019. In the said post on your Facebook page, you warmly acknowledged the victims of Rwanda genocide. The Rwanda war (a war, which lasted from 1990 to 1994, arose from the long-running dispute between the Hutu and Tutsi groups within the Rwandan population), which consumed about 1.2 million innocent lives, has continually remain an indelible pogrom in the global terrain. It was a war that showed the savage disposition of the black man. Above all, I must not fail to commend you for hypocritically joining other forerunners of peace and justice around the globe in remembering those innocent Rwandans who were horrifically butchered in that irresponsible war.

Madam, I am seriously worried over your double standard deposition and that of the British government. I am saying this because Britain, after 58 years, has refused, and even made several covert and overt effort in ensuring that the topic of Biafra genocide is not discussed anywhere. In fact, it is also obvious that Britain and other war mongers, who benefited from the spoils of the war, have been able to ensure that the media giants around their domain never make the mistake of discussing the issue of Biafra genocide, and even if they will do, the discussion will be marred with so much subjectivity. The mission is simple, Make Biafra the villain and make those economic hitmen who orchestrated and benefited from the war the victims.

It is now glaring to all and sundry that there exist a monumental conspiracy against the issue of Biafra genocide. What transpired in Rwanda cannot and will never for any reason be approximated to the blood bath which took place in the Biafran and Nigerian war. Many can choose to buy into the misleading narrative of 'civil war', but to me, there was no iota of civility in that war. It was more of a total annihilation of the Biafran specie. The motto of the war was simple, 'clean them up by any means and take over the oil'. The oil was more relevant than the lives of the indigenous people.

Madam, there are graphic and video recordings on the Nigerian and Biafran war available to the public. It shows how millions of children from Biafra, which is presently known as the Eastern part of Nigeria were starved to death during the war. Considering verifiable data at the public disposal, about 2 million innocent children died as a result of starvation. There were no food and medication. Children turned to skeletons with bloated stomach. While the total of 5 to 6 million civilians died in the senseless war.

During this ethnic pogrom, BBC, a British owned media house, was lying to the world that it wasn't a war and that what was going on was merely a police action to quell a mild rebellion. While this mindless mendaciousness was being sold to the global community, the British government and their allies, with interest in the oil rich Biafra, were secretly arming the Nigerian government to commit the most hideous crime and genocide in the history of mankind.

The war at the end of the day amounted to a huge collateral damage. Human and material resources were unreasonably wasted. Though the kingpins of the war will always say, 'no victor and no vanquish', but unfortunately, such bogus mantra is nothing but a spinless lie designed to rewrite what ought to be. Biafra lost millions of promising lives and their properties worth billions of pounds (in the present day estimate) were confiscated. Thousands of industrialists and families who had huge sums in banks lost it. Some were given 20 pounds out of the thousands they had before the war while others never received a dime.

Madam, the British government that spearheaded and also gave logistics to their surrogate in Nigeria during the war, has never for one day remembered and show a heartfelt remorse for the criminal role they played in that war. Is it not an act of hypocrisy and wickedness of the highest order? It worries me, to a great extent, that the British government has become more recalcitrant in ensuring that the injustice done to Biafrans during and after the war is never discussed, and expiation fully made on it. Moreover, efforts have not been made to bring to book those depraved hitmen who orchestrated the war for their selfish aggrandizement.

However Madam, as the number one citizen of Britain, you may attempt to feign ignorance of Biafra genocide, but I promise you one thing, a day is coming when the chicken will return to roost. The entire British empire in one way or the other will have to taste the same poison they served Biafra in 1967 to 1970. It may not be now but in the near future. Probably, the future generation may ignorantly bear the consequences of the dastardly action of Harold Wilson.

Conclusively Madam, I will like to throw up a challenge to you. If you truly think the British government has regretted and repented from the prominent part they played in the Nigeria and Biafra war, I will suggest you use 30th of May, 2019 (the day Biafrans around the universe use to remember and mourn their loved ones who were victims of 1967 to 1970 war), to show a warm solidarity to Biafrans as they will be remembering the victims of Britain and Nigeria's callousness. This solidarity can be demonstrated by asking BBC to run a one week video documentary that will show full footage of kwashiorkor stricken children from Biafra, and how international markets, institutions of learning and residential areas were mercilessly bombed and looted by the Nigerian troops. Also, how mothers and their young daughters were brutally molested and raped in the presence of their husbands and fathers.

This solidarity can be further demonstrated through a sincere change in the aspect of policy direction in the Biafra question, which means that Britain as a matter of national pride and importance must compel Nigeria to do the needful so that there can be an end to this long overdue issue of Biafra being an independent nation. If this can be done, then I can say that Britain has regretted and repented from the despicable role they played in the Biafra genocide.

Accept my letter with utmost sincerity.

Kalu Nwokoro Idika

Kalu Nwokoro Idika is a political analyst

for Family Writers Press.

IS THIS THE BEGINNING OF

 THE END?

The current state of the Biafran struggle for self-determination has transcended the level the Nigeria political power brokers can contend with. The case has snowballed into an international matter which is capable of questioning the future of the Nigerian state and its sovereignty. The on-going case between the federal Government of Nigeria versus Nnamdi Kanu over the trumped up allegation that the latter committed treasonable felony, for which he and the four others were arraigned at the federal high court of the federal Republic of Nigeria, and later alleged to have jumped bail has taken a new dimension. But as it was widely reported in the Nigerian media and from principal witnesses and the lawyer of the foremost Biafran leader that the security of the state with all state security and war apparatus invading the house of the IPOB leader at Afararukwu in Abia state with the intention to eliminate him and in the process State violence was visited on the entire community where lives were massively lost and the state of the safety of the IPOB leader and his whereabouts was unknown after the military operation. Subsequently after the above scenario, the court reconvened to continue with the trials only for the case to get twisted when the court insisted that the IPOB leader must appear in court to face trail over the case brought against him by the prosecutor which in this case is the Federal Government of Nigeria. The argument for and against over why the IPOB leader who later appeared in Israel and have been making series of broadcasting statements on Radio on the events surrounding how the state, some Igbo leaders, conspired with the bench to get him eliminated while he is still under the protective bail of the court of which he had vowed never to appear to again to answer the allegation of treasonable felony placed on him by the Nigerian state and he continues to vehemently insist that he has committed no crime for which he could be accused let alone treasonable felony, as what he is agitating for ,is the freedom of his people under the concept of self-determination and secession which is well embedded in the Nigerian constitution, extant laws which is the common laws and international conventions, treaties and conference resolutions . He made series of revelations concerning the Nigerian leadership and how and why he, could never get justice in a Nigerian court presided over by a Nigerian judge.

Following Nnamdi Kanu’s decision not to appear in court again, there has been series of court arguments in which at a point the court was contemplating forfeiting the bail bond of the sureties that stood in for his bail and there were counter opposition to this intending decision of the court that eventually made one of the sureties suing the judge of the court to another division of the court seeking for his right to be protected by his court. This action was followed by subsequent Binta Nyako’s court ruling to absolve the sureties of any wrong doings and decided to revoke the bail right granted the IPOB leader and issued a bench warrant arrest against anywhere the IPOB leader is sited and be brought to court to face his trials. This above order of the court was made against all the entreaties by legal representations of the IPOB leader and the others to present the actual information concerning why their clients could no longer appear in court, every attempts by the defendants representatives to present these facts to the court of what the security operatives did which led to the disappearance of their client was rebuffed by the trial Judge.

The reaction of the above insistence of the court that the embattled IPOB Leader must face trial took a new twist when he declared in one of his radio broadcast on Radio Biafra, London that he is not a Nigerian and he is suing the Nigerian Government to a court in the British court challenging the decision of the Nigerian court to revoked his bail and many other reliefs that he may be demanding to advance the course of the Biafran struggle.

In his last broadcast on Radio Biafra, the Biafran Leader exposed some section of the Nigerian laws predicated on some sections of the provision of 1999 Nigerian constitution and some existing laws that legalized his demand for a separate Biafran State out of Nigeria. He spoke so confidently about the justiciability of these laws as they are written in Black and white which formed parts of the common laws of the federation of Nigeria and no court in the country has any powers to assumed any jurisdiction concerning these sets laws when they are connected to process for demand for outright secession or struggle for self-determination for a separate homeland out of Nigeria, once the process do not contravene the process laid down in the criminal code of the federal Republic of Nigeria. The citation of some of these laws that he cited are;

1, That under the Shagari administration in 1983, there was a law passed by the National Assembly in Lagos during that political era titled “The Law of the Federation of Nigeria” which enable any Region or a people, who felt that they are political, economic and socio-cultural oppressed within Nigeria State, to be assisted by the government of the country to freely exited the Nigerian federation to seek for separate homeland where the above deprivation can be redressed.

2. That there was a decree promulgated under the general Babagida administration titled “The Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990, cap 10” The above law re-consolidated the rights of secession and self-determination to any people and parts of Nigeria, which was initially asserted in the 1983 laws, can comfortable pullout of the Nigerian federation with the supports of the Nigerian State.

3. That there was also consolidation of the above two laws that legalized the calls and struggle for secession and calls for self-determination under Nigerian common laws passed under the democratic administration of President Olusegun Obasanjo titled “The Law of the Federation of Nigeria” passed in 2004. This Act powered Nigeria to be a state party positively with all technical assistance to any Region or peoples in Nigeria seriously advocating for exit out of the Nigerian federation. But from all indications, it could be assumed that it is the criminal class political elites, traditional rulers and business and corporate professionals along North and South divide who are the albatross and the stumbling block to the enforcement of these above laws to segments and groups who had long rejected the unworkable and fraudulent National unity that has bought deaths, genocide, ethnic cleansing, pains, under-development, poverty, massive uncontained corruption practices within the public and private sectors at all strata of the Nigerian society.

The Nnamdi Case versus Federal Republic of Nigeria has been slated for a court in the United Kingdom on the 29th of April, 2019. Nigeria’s legal representation will be expected to make appearance at the hearing and trials of this historic case. Many paradox box and hidden secrets which were initially not made known to the Nigeria people will be uncovered under oath. And the legality for demanding for one separate country out of Nigeria will be tested. All Nigerian laws that supported the calls for self-determination in the country will be tested. All international treaties and conventions both at the international and at the regional level which Nigeria is a signatories to will be invoked. What amount to acts of treasonable felony within the context of the Nigeria criminal code system? Why the South and the North be run or criminal code versus penal code system if the country is truly a united federation and why the federation created by the British should not be urgently terminated? Why the amalgamation document of 1914, if such document existed, must be presented in the British court on the 29th of this month in the UK court and the legality of such document and its contents having any legal effect of the law binding consequences further on the remnants of the succeeding generations who are now the victims of such evil amalgamation? And whether the independence constitutions and the subsequent ones, are subjected to the popular endorsement of those who were referred as Nigerians via a fallout of an outcomes of popular referendum.

All self-determination and separatists in Nigeria must developed vested interests in the case between Nnamdi Kanu and the federal Republic of Nigeria, later this month in the United Kingdom and be ready to take their stand over the fallout of the case in question. Our problems as a people started by the British in 1914, may also be finally be settled in the British court once and for all.

MAKANJUOLA ADIGUN MUHAMMED.

                  Mary Slessor Was A Big Lair 

Mary Slessor Was A Big Lair

Beware of white folks and their history. What i shall prove to you now will shock you . The so call history written by white folks and propagated by church missionaries accusing the igbo of killing twins was nothing but a fabricated lie.

They said mary slessor stopped the killing of twins in ala igbo , Asi asi !!

Think again about the name ejima ,

"Ejiri mara ibe ya or Eji mara ibe ya ".

It means when you see one , you have seen the other.

To do this you have to have them as grown up who are part of society where they showcase their unity of soul which is the true nature of ejiiri mara ibe ya (twins).

This name explained properly how the igbos view twins .

They were seen as replicas of one another or identical humans, thus it is normal to tell one what you want to tell the other and do to one what you do to the other . When gift are given to one it is also given to the other .

This name in itself has no negative connotations but positive all the way.

Therefore it proved that the igbo's had always respected twins.

Here are more Profs ;

1. Mary slessor had no single book on how she stop the killing of twins in Igbo land.

2. How can you stop the killing of twins but kill the same people as slaves ? (Please refer to trans Atlantic slavery)

3. Wikipedia and other reference works never mentioned that there were such practice in Ala Igbo .

4 Maungo park also discovered river Niger Asi asi !!

5. No omenala custodian agree that this ever happened.

6. The very existence of Nso Ani Igbo disagree with this infanticide story.

7. The white folk Marry slessor was a colonialist , spy and a cheap blackmailer.

A stranger can't tell you your history, worse of all an enemy can keep your good records.

Copied from mazi Akajiofo

#SupportBiafraReferendum

#GOJOINIPOB NOW